CC Minutes - 04/20/09 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

budget initiative to ask citizens what their priorities were for spending and using that input to develop the budget, and 3) better communicate spending decisions. Scott Smith , Pond Lane, Eugene, Ward 5, said he believed that maintaining infrastructure was a fundamen- tal responsibility of the City and road funding should be a sufficiently high priority that it was supported by the General Fund instead of extra taxes or other fund-raising devices. Councilor Zelenka closed the public hearing and called for comments. Councilor Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Ruiz that the surcharge would apply only to City residents. He asked staff to determine prior to the next work session the change in the number of people with garbage service after the recent fee increase. He said he was on the council subcommittee on transportation funding and supported the surcharge because there was a direct nexus between certain vehicles and damage to the streets. He said the subcommittee looked closely at other heavy vehicles using the streets, but there were no others using the streets as regularly as garbage trucks. He said there was no practical way to establish the specific street usage of other heavy vehicles and some of those trucks were not operated by Eugene businesses. He said a number of options for funding street repairs were considered and the garbage hauler surcharge seemed equitable and fair because it charged both commercial and residential users. He was willing to consider modifying its impact on school districts. Councilor Clark disagreed with Councilor Zelenka and Mr. Barofsky’s comments. He said the surcharge seemed to be an arbitrary choice for taxing people, using the justification that those trucks alone caused a unique type of damage to the streets. He said it was a bad time to impose additional costs on people, given the current economic situation and federal and regional governments were also looking at additional measures to generate revenue. He asked the staff to compile a list of the new taxes and fees being considered by all levels of government that would impact the residents of Eugene so the council would have a clearer perspective at its work session on the surcharge. Councilor Pryor said he also served on the transportation subcommittee that put forth the surcharge proposal and while it seemed like a reasonable part of an overall funding package at that time, he was impressed by the testimony addressing larger community issues and not just personal impact. He said the City did need to generate a source of revenue to help with the cost of road repair and maintenance; paying for transportation from the General Fund would require will on the council to cut public safety and other services. He said the testimony provided during the hearing would have an influence on his consideration of the surcharge. Mr. Ruiz remarked that the budgeting process included reducing the City’s footprint—headcount, fleet, facilities—as part of the solution to the budget deficit. He said the surcharge was the only new fee or tax being proposed in the FY 2010 budget. Councilor Poling asked what methodology would be used to separate City residents from County residents for purposes of imposing the surcharge in sections of the City like Santa Clara. Mr. Corey replied that the mechanism would be similar to the one under which the garbage haulers currently paid a license fee to the City. He would provide the council with details of that mechanism. Councilor Poling stated he would not support the surcharge because it was an unfair tax. He felt there was a better way to fund the transportation system than singling out an industry because it was an easy target when there were many other heavy vehicles using residential streets. He would be more inclined to support MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 7 Public Hearing